Tag: Aboriginal rights

Clearing the lands has always been at the heart of Canada’s Indian Policy

*Originally published in Globe & Mail Feb. 27, 2020

CANADA’S INDIAN POLICY HASN’T CHANGED MUCH

After the events of the past few weeks in Canada, one thing remains clear: Canada’s Indian policy hasn’t changed much since its inception. Indian policy has always had two objectives: to obtain Indian lands and resources and to reduce financial obligations to Indigenous peoples acquired through treaties or other means. Its primary methods were elimination or assimilation of Indian

Colonial governments had a long history of scalping bounties to kill specific groups of Indigenous peoples, using small pox blankets to increase death rates from disease and forced sterilizations to reduce the populations. Even Confederation did not dispense with the violent colonization of what would now become known as Canada. Canada’s first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, told the House of Commons in 1882: “I have reason to believe that the agents as a whole … are doing all they can, by refusing food until the Indians are on the verge of starvation, to reduce the expense.” Canada was fully engaged in clearing the lands, by any means necessary.

https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/aps/index.php/aps/article/view/22225/pdf_22

RECONCILIATION: THE GOAL IS THE SAME

Now referred to as Indigenous reconciliation, the goal is still the same: to clear the lands of Indigenous peoples in order to bolster settlement and extraction of resources. This singular focus formed the basis of the violent colonization of Indigenous lands and peoples and, ultimately, is why Canada has been accused of genocide by the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Canada’s complex set of laws, policies, practices, actions and omissions have created an infrastructure of violence toward Indigenous peoples and the continued dispossession of their lands.

This is at the heart of the devastating socio-economic conditions of many Indigenous peoples today, including multiple health crises such as diabetes, heart disease and strokes, lower life spans, higher rates of mental illness and some of the highest suicide rates in the world. These genocidal policies also serve to remove Indigenous peoples from their lands through high foster care rates, killings and disappearances of Indigenous women and girls and the skyrocketing incarceration rates.

Genocide in Canada

APOLOGIES VERSUS LAND BACK

Despite carefully worded apologies and promises of a better relationship, none of these conditions has changed and, in fact, most are getting worse. Add to this that First Nations have less than 0.02 per cent of all their lands left – mostly in tiny reserves controlled by the federal government. Political rhetoric about supporting Indigenous self-determination means very little when we are denied access to our lands and resources.

We need to be honest about what is going on. There never was any real intention of recognizing Indigenous land rights – whether under Indigenous laws, Section 35 aboriginal and treaty right protections in the Constitution Act, 1982, or by implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It has been painfully clear, at every flashpoint in Canada’s history, that it is willing to starve Indigenous peoples into submission or imprison them to access their lands.

This is at the heart of what is happening across Canada over the past few weeks. The Wet’suwet’en Nation, as represented by their traditional government, acting on Wet’suwet’en laws and decision-making protocols, have said no to pipelines on their traditional territory. While five of the six band councils within the Nation have allegedly agreed to the pipeline, their jurisdiction extends over their reserve lands. It is the hereditary leaders who have the legal jurisdiction over their traditional territory, to decide whether the pipeline can cross their pristine forests and rivers.

https://soundcloud.com/pampalmater/molly-wickham-on-gitdimten-yintah-access

CANADA BREACHS ITS OWN “RULE OF LAW”

The Supreme Court of Canada had already acknowledged in the Delgamuukw case that these were the proper representatives to bring a claim of aboriginal title. Eight of these leaders have said no to the pipeline. Despite this, the RCMP invaded their territory and forcibly removed them from their lands – counter to Wet’suwet’en law, Canadian law and international law. UNDRIP, which is now implemented in British Columbia, prevents the forced removal of Indigenous peoples from their lands. This flagrant breach of Canada’s own rule of law is why the peaceful solidarity actions started all over Canada.

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/mikmaw-treaty-rights-reconciliation-and-the-rule-of-law

This is also why these actions will continue. Every time law enforcement is sent in to the clear the lands of the “Indians” to make way for pipelines and extraction of resources, you will see more and more Indigenous nations and Canadian allies stand against this injustice.

The real issue has always been about the land. The way forward is recognition of our right to be self-determining over our own lands and resources.

Anything less is just the same old Indian policy that invites more uncertainty and social conflict. Canada can do better. It’s time to move past genocide and work toward respect for Indigenous land rights.

#LANDBACK

*This article originally appeared in The Globe and Mail on February 27, 2020 and updated on February 28, 2020 and can be found here:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-clearing-the-lands-has-always-been-at-the-heart-of-canadas-indian/

The blog version has been slightly edited for style and the addition of resources.

August 1, 2021
RCMP Invasion of Wet’suwet’en Nation territory breaches Canada’s “rule of law”

RCMP invades Wet’suwet’en territory. Photo by Amber Bracken; Jan. 7, 2019

While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau makes flowery public speeches about respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples and reassures the international community that there is no relationship more important that the one with Indigenous peoples, Canada invaded sovereign Wet’suwet’en Nation territory. When questioned about this aggressive move at a Liberal fundraiser in Kamloops, British Columbia, he responded: “No, obviously, it’s not an ideal situation… But at the same time, we’re also a country of the rule of law.” Canada’s invasion of Wet’suwet’en territory through its national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), is an example of the blatant violation of the rule of law in favour of corporate interests. Canada has consistently failed to follow the rule of law when it comes to Indigenous peoples, and the violent arrests of the Wet’suwet’en people at the Gidimt’en checkpoint, set up in support of the Unist’ot’en homestead, is a glaring example of Canada’s lawlessness.

The people of Wet’suwet’en Nation, as represented by their traditional government, have long asserted their sovereign jurisdiction over their Nation’s lands which span about 22,000 square kilometres in northwest British Columbia. These lands have never been ceded, nor have their rights to use, manage, protect or govern these lands been extinguished in any way. The Nation has never signed any treaty or constitutional agreement that has specifically surrendered their sovereignty as a Nation. While there have been many federal and provincial laws that have interfered with First Nation laws in general, there has never been an explicit extinguishment of Wet’suwet’en laws and jurisdiction over their Nation’s sovereign territory. Their land rights are not only recognized in Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982, but they are also protected in numerous international treaties and declarations, like the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). In other words, there was no legal basis for Canada to invade their territory.

The Wet’suwet’en Nation is a governing Nation that has existed since time immemorial. They are made up of five clans: Gil_seyhu (Big Frog), Laksilyu (Small Frog), Gitdumden (Wolf/Bear), Laksamshu (Fireweed), and Tsayu (Beaver). The Wet’suwet’en are organized through a system of hereditary leaders and have a complex system of governance. While Canada did force the chief and council system on First Nations through the Indian Act, it was not successful in extinguishing or displacing the Nation’s traditional government. This is evidenced in the fact that when the Wet’suwet’en Nation decided to assert their land rights in Canada’s courts, they did so as a Nation, through their traditional government as represented by their hereditary leaders.

In Delgamuuwk v. British Columbia (1997), the Wet’suwet’en, together with the Gitksan, asserted title to their lands. While the issue was ordered back to trial, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) made significant findings about the nature of Aboriginal title being a right to the land itself. The SCC found that the land is held communally, by all members of the Aboriginal Nation for their “exclusive use and occupation,” and that this right to land was protected in “pre-existing systems of aboriginal law” and Canada’s common law, even before the protection of Aboriginal rights in section 35 of the 1982 Constitution Act. No laws have since extinguished Wet’suwet’en rights with regards to their territory. Also significant is the fact that according to SCC jurisprudence, Aboriginal title contains an inherent limitation, in that title lands can’t be used in a way that is “irreconcilable” with the nature of the Nation’s attachment to those lands. The SCC explained it this way: “Implicit in the protection of historic patterns of occupation is a recognition of the importance of continuity of the relationship of an aboriginal community to its land over time.”

What can we take from this case? Well, according to Canadian law, we know that it is the “Aboriginal Nation,” in this instance the Wet’suwet’en Nation, that has the legal ownership of their traditional territories, not an individual band. So it matters little that some of the bands may have signed an agreement with the pipeline company, especially if they did so in relation to territory off the reserve and without the free, prior and informed consent of the people. We also know that the lands are not held by individuals, but by the whole Nation. Thus any decisions in relation to those lands rest with the Nation. We also know that the purpose of section 35 is to protect the many ways in which Aboriginal Nations enjoy their title lands and these Nations can’t use them in ways which are inconsistent with those uses. The SCC specifically stated that if Aboriginal title lands are used as hunting grounds, then the land can’t be used in a way that destroys its value – as in strip mining.

In the present case, not only were the Wet’suwet’en people using and occupying their lands, they were also protecting their lands from destruction by the Coastal GasLink pipeline slated to go through their territory. If Aboriginal Nations can’t risk destroying their title lands for extractive projects, certainly corporations should not be permitted to do so. It’s also clear that despite the media reports, this was never about a protest. This was always about occupying and protecting their lands – something they have the legal right to do. This is where the so-called “rule of law” comes into play. The rule of law is touted by Canada every time it actually wants to break the law; according to the United Security Council, rule of law means:

All persons, institutions and entities, public and private … are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards.

It becomes very clear then, that Canada has a long history of breaching the rule of law when it comes to First Nations. In the Wet’suwet’en case, Canada has prioritized the extraction interests of a corporation over the constitutionally protected rights of a sovereign Aboriginal Nation. This is a clear violation of the law. The Wet’suwet’en right to occupy and protect their territory is an internationally recognized human rights norm, now reflected in UNDRIP. Article 8 provides the right of Indigenous peoples not to be subjected to the destruction of their culture – something that would naturally come from destruction of their lands and waters with a pipeline.

Article 10 provides that Indigenous peoples will not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories – as was done by the RCMP who arrested and removed Wet’suwet’en people from their own lands. Articles 25 and 26 specifically protect the rights of Indigenous peoples to own, use and control their traditional lands, waters, coastal seas and resources and further protects their rights to “uphold their responsibilities to their future generations in this regard.”

Not only has Canada committed to implement UNDRIP into law, it is legally bound by many other international human rights treaties that it has ratified. While UNDRIP may not yet be law in Canada, it represents the minimum international legal norms for recognizing the core human rights of Indigenous peoples – something that Canada’s rule of law requires. Canada has also issued a directive on how it should engage with Indigenous peoples on litigation relating to their rights, which Canada claims is based on reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and respect for their legal rights. Former Minister of Justice Jody Wilson-Raybould made the bold claim that although she was just releasing this directive in January 2019, Canada has been using these rules for the last two years. It is important to note that this directive states that: “Aboriginal rights do not require a court declaration or an agreement in order to be recognized.” This is something the SCC has confirmed many times in its jurisprudence on the duty to consult, accommodate and get consent.

Yet, we know that Canada has not only failed to abide by its own litigation directive, but it has blatantly violated Wet’suwet’en laws, Canadian laws, international laws and its own purported commitment to the rule of law.

When Canada sent the RCMP into sovereign Wet’suwet’en Nation territory to destroy their check points and violently arrest and remove Wet’suwet’en people from their own lands, it became lawless – an outlaw state. It also violated its own litigation directive when the RCMP issued a statement saying that since there has been no court case declaring Aboriginal title, the RCMP were justified in their actions. In denying the Wet’suwet’en their constitutionally protected legal right to enjoy their title lands, Canada has prioritized the private, economic interests of a corporation – Coastal GasLink Pipeline – over the rule of law. As explained by the Wet’suwet’en:

The Unist’ot’en homestead is not a protest or demonstration. Our clan is occupying and using our traditional territory as it has for centuries…. Our homestead is a peaceful expression of our connection to our territory. It is also an example of the continuous use and occupation of our territory by our clan.

In this case, the laws of Canada were neither equally enforced, nor compliant with international human rights standards. Canada is not a country that follows the rule of law. Canada makes and breaks laws to suit its own economic and political interests, which run counter to those of Indigenous peoples. It is time to be honest about it, and call out Canada as an outlaw, and take action to support the Wet’suwet’en Nation, who have occupied their lands since time immemorial.

This article was originally published in Canadian Dimension Magazine on April 24, 2019:

https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/rcmp-invasion-of-wetsuweten-nation-territory-breaches-canadas-rule-of-law

February 5, 2020
Federal Budget 2019: Indigenous Women and Children Left Behind – Again

As expected, the Assembly of First Nations was first out of the gate offering glowing praise for this Liberal government’s federal budget, followed shortly thereafter by the Metis National Council and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami – the three male-dominated national Aboriginal organizations. Their organizations have seen substantial increases in funding for their political organizations in recent years. Meanwhile, the Native Women’s Association of Canada – the only political organization representing Indigenous women at the national level – issued its own press release criticizing the government for failing Indigenous women. They accused the federal government of, once again, ignoring the pressing needs of Indigenous women and in so doing, not only hampering reconciliation but breaching their core human rights. NWAC is especially aggrieved about this lack of funding for Indigenous women and families, given the urgent need to address murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls.

The exclusion of Indigenous women and girls as a priority in this federal budget is a glaring example of the ongoing racism and sexism that is so deeply embedded in Canada’s laws, policies, practices and institutions – the very same racism and sexism the Liberal government claims to be against. When the federal government announced the National Inquiry into Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women and Girls in 2016, former Liberal Minister for the Status of Women, Patty Hadju, spoke of the urgent need to address the longstanding racism and sexism embedded in Canada’s institutions. Yet, this urgent policy objective is not reflected in any substantive way in federal budget 2019. In fact, there are no funds allocated for a comprehensive plan to address violence against women generally, and no funds for a targeted comprehensive of plan of action to address violence against Indigenous women and girls specifically. Indigenous and women’s organizations have called on Canada to take comprehensive action now to implement recommendations from the United Nations treaty bodies to reduce murdered and missing Indigenous women and girls before the national inquiry’s report is released.

http://fafia-afai.org/en/press-release-coalition-calls-for-urgent-action-to-stop-violence-against-indigenous-women-and-girls-%EF%BB%BF/

The National Inquiry’s report is due out in less than a month and there is no budget set aside to implement whatever recommendations come from that report either. The limited funds for commemoration seems not only inadequate, but also premature given that the crisis has not abated. Where is the urgent and sustained help for the many families deeply impacted by the abuse, exploitation, trafficking, disappearances and murders of thousands of Indigenous women and girls?

A particularly shocking exclusion from the budget is the lack funding for First Nations child and family services to address the crisis of First Nations children in foster care. Former Minister of Indigenous Services, Jane Philpott called the staggering statistics related to First Nation kids in care a “humanitarian crisis” – comparing it to the residential school system. She pledged to work with First Nations to address the critical need for funding to prevent apprehensions and address the root causes of over-representation, which include conditions of poverty. This glaring omission from the budget is confounding given the fact that Parliament had previously committed to targeted funding to accompany Bill C-92 An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families, which already been introduced in Parliament. Although the federal government promised significant funding to support Bill C-92 – there is no specified funding either in the bill or the budget. Not a single dollar has been allocated to support First Nations develop their own laws and institutions specific to child and family services, hire and train staff, as well as provide the much-needed wrap around social, educational and health services to families in need as advocated in the Spirit Bear Plan.

https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Spirit%20Bear%20Plan%20%28EN%29.pdf

Dr. Cindy Blackstock, the head of the First Nation Child and Family Caring Society welcomed the additional funding for Jordan’s Principle, however explained that it does not go far enough and many children – like non-status Indian children are still excluded. Jordan’s Principle is a child-first principle which aims to ensure First Nation children can access all public services in a culturally-appropriate way, without any delays or hurdles because they are First Nations. The federal budget pledges $1.2 billion over three years. However, the flat funding does not take into account population growth over the funded years, or the rising cost of inflation. There are also no additional funds to address the thousands of First Nation children who will be newly entitled to Indian status as a result of Bill S-3 An Act to Amend the Indian Act (elimination of sex-based inequities in registration) or from the revised unstated paternity policy in relation to registration. Both of these issues are the result of the federal government losing two court cases (Descheneaux and Gehl) on discrimination against First Nations women and children.

Yet, despite the legal obligation to provide funding, none has been identified in this budget. This limited funding is not an act of reconciliation. The federal has been dragged to this point – kicking and screaming – by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, with no less than five non-compliance orders for failing to end discrimination in funding of First Nation children in care. So, while the extra funding is welcome, it is not a “gift”.

A particularly disturbing omission is the lack of targeted funding for First Nation women and their descendants who would newly entitled to Indian status under Bill S-3. The bill has been in place for a year and will add thousands to the registration list, yet no new funds have been identified for education, health or housing for individuals or First Nations. This is despite the fact that the United Nations just agreed with Sharon McIvor that the Indian Act still discriminates against the descendants of First Nations women who married-out, and directed Canada to provide full reparation. This means registering them and providing much-needed social programs. Similarly, there is no targeted funding to address the increase in registration due to Lynn Gehl’s successful court case against Canada for it’s discriminatory unstated paternity policy. At every turn, First Nations women and children are forced to wait for justice and are denied their basic human rights and access to the same programs and services available to their fathers, brothers and uncles.

One of the most under-served categories of First Nations are those living off-reserve. Approximately 33% of First Nations live off-reserve in Canada, and a disproportionate number of families are headed by single Indigenous mothers. Metis and Inuit don’t live on reserves at all – therefore the majority of Indigenous peoples live off-reserve. The amount allocated in the budget is a mere $60 million over 5 years to help fund off-reserve organizations like native friendship centres. That is barely $10 million a year – nowhere near what is needed to address urgent housing, education, and health needs for more than 800,000 Indigenous peoples living off-reserve – let alone the growing homelessness crisis plaguing Indigenous peoples. Niigaan Sinclair reports in the Winnipeg Free Press that the chronic under-funding is made worse by the fact that federal bureaucrats and other consultants and contractors, suck up nearly 50% of all funding appropriated by Parliament for First Nations. With three departments now directly responsible for Indigenous and Northern Affairs, who is to say whether First Nations will see much of this funding at all, let alone Indigenous women and children.

https://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/new-dollars-sure-but-same-political-game-507393892.html?fbclid=IwAR3jyFhBNuvatzHwVlW-JLWn28sw4MWAdhaGPfD2_strkkdgeiRGRJ0nQsU

While there are many other problems with federal budget 2019, the most glaring omission is the exclusion of Indigenous women and children. Back in 2016, the Liberal government promised a gender based analysis for future budgets. Yet, this budget lacks a gender-based, human rights-based and Indigenous rights-based analysis that focuses on not just policy objectives like reconciliation, but concrete domestic and international legal obligations. There is no mention of returning lands and resources back to First Nations, no mention of a financial plan in relation to treaty implementation or how the federal government will ensure Indigenous women’s voices are at the many negotiating tables they fund. This budget is a disgrace and does little to address any of the pressing Indigenous issues impacting Indigenous women and children like kids in care, murdered and missing Indigenous women, over-incarceration, homelessness, unequal access to Indian status, poverty and poor health outcomes. Trudeau makes good use of flowery speeches and tearful apologies to Indigenous peoples, but has left Indigenous women and children far behind – again.

Perhaps Prime Minister Trudeau should give some Indigenous women a call and figure out how to amend the budget so it better reflects the law in this country. At least, that’s what a feminist Prime Minister would do.

APTN Panel discussion on Federal Budget 2019 and what it means for Indigenous Peoples:

https://tinyurl.com/y689zmyh

March 21, 2019
Bill C-91 An Act Respecting Indigenous Languages: More Hollow Reconciliation

There is no doubt that pre- and post-confederation governments in what is now known as Canada have developed policies, enacted laws and regulations, and engaged in practices that have had as their primary objectives: (1) to acquire First Nation lands and resources and (2) to reduce financial obligations acquired through treaties and other agreements with First Nations. Their primary methods have been to eliminate and/or assimilate “Indians”. Elimination took the forms of small pox blankets, scalping bounties, murders, starvation rations, and forced sterilizations. Attempts at forced assimilation took place in the form residential schools, forced adoptions (60’s scoop), and the Indian Act which outlawed certain cultural practices and created a legislative extinction date for First Nations. The impact of these laws, policies and practices have been nothing short of genocidal. The specific impact to First Nations languages have been devastating. The majority of the 70 different First Nation languages are at risk of extinction. The federal government would have us all believe that have moved on from this so-called legacy of the past and have transitioned into a period of reconciliation. The former Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in Parliament for the harms of residential schools: Two primary objectives of the Residential Schools system were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture. These objectives were based on the assumption Aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as it was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child”. Today, we recognize that this policy of assimilation was wrong, has caused great harm, and has no place in our country. (PM Stephen Harper) Yet, following this apology, the Conservative government made staggering funding cuts to First Nations and First Nation organizations; and reduced the funds available for First Nation languages. Harper’s empty apology meant that the majority of First Nation languages would continue to be at risk of extinction. However, Harper’s decade of doom was followed by the welcome election promises of the current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who promised to undo all the harms of the previous Harper government, including the repeal of legislation imposed on First Nations during Harper’s era. Trudeau also promised to implement all the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s (TRC) Calls to Action and in particular, committed to legislate the formal recognition of Indigenous languages as an Aboriginal right and provide sufficient funding. Where he went wrong was in partnering with an Aboriginal organization – the Assembly of First Nations – to do this work, instead of working with the rights-holders: First Nations and their language experts. What has resulted is Bill C-91 An Act Respecting Indigenous Languages – legislation bountiful in flowery wording and empty on substantive rights. Not the best way to start off 2019 – the year of Indigenous Languages. Bill C-91 was introduced and had its first reading by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism Pablo Rodriguez, on February 5, 2019. The bill went to second reading on February 20, 2019 and was referred to the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage on the same day. Therein lies the first problem – that this bill is sponsored by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism and being studied by the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. First Nation rights are not a matter of Canadian heritage or multi-culturalism. First Nations are not comparable to minorities or ethnic groups. First Nations are the original sovereign Nations of the territories on which Canada now sits with their nation-based laws, customs, practices, governments, economies, trading networks, and military alliances. Their status as sovereign Nations was undisputed and is the reason why treaties were signed. Nations only sign treaties with other Nations – not with subjects, citizens or cultural groups. First Nations were not then, nor are they now mere cultural groups. Trudeau had promised to work together with First Nations on a Nation-to-Nation basis in a way that recognizes First Nation rights and work in partnership, instead of the usual paternalistic, top-down approach. Yet, Bill C-91 is exactly that – top-down legislation drafted with the advice of the AFN, but not the First Nation rights-holders themselves. Worse than that, the bill is not a recognition of the official status of First Nation language rights or a guaranteed minimum level of funding. It reads more like a carefully worded, overly broad, vague set of theoretical aspirations than any legal commitment one could enforce. Even the Indigenous Languages Commissioner as set out in the bill is appointed by, paid by, and can be removed by, Canada; with powers limited to research and advocacy. This is a real missed opportunity for Trudeau who could have worked with First Nations language experts and designed legislation to truly protect First Nation languages and take real steps to undo the devastation done by federal laws and policies. Although there are many problems with the wording in every section of this bill, and there are many legal problems raised with said wording, I have five core concerns. First, there is no specific recognition of First Nation languages as official languages, nor is there a specific First Nation language right that is actually granted or recognized. The bill merely references rights “in relation to” Indigenous languages, but this could mean one’s personal right to speak a language versus the right to receive government services on one’s language, for example. Secondly, there is no specific recognition of First Nation jurisdiction or powers in relation to First Nation languages. The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism retains all powers in relation to the bill and any future regulations. My third concern is that there is no specific or firm commitment in relation to funding. The bill provides that the Minister will “establish measures to facilitate the provision” of funding. However, establishing “measures” is not a direct commitment for a specific funding amount or a commitment to whom this funding will flow. This relates to my fourth concern, that the bill promotes a pan-Aboriginal approach that is not First Nation-specific and appears to put other broadly-defined “Indigenous groups” on the same level as First Nations. Under this bill, funds could flow to anyone who incorporated an organization and claimed to be Indigenous – despite their lack of status as actual rights-holders within a specific First Nation territory. Finally, this bill appears to utilize the same federally-controlled legislative framework concept for rights definition, limitation and scoping. Trudeau already had to back away from the federal rights recognition framework already rejected by numerous First Nations and First Nation organizations. Of particular concern is the federal government’s intention to establish a “framework” that is intended to define, limit and determine the scope of the language rights to be exercised, how and by whom, by way of negotiated agreements. While the AFN and the Metis National Council have come out in support of the bill, the Inuit Tapariit Kanatami have been very critical of it, explaining that they feel Canada acted in bad faith, that is not Inuit-specific, and does not protect Inuit language rights. “The absence of any Inuit-specific content suggests this bill is yet another legislative initiative developed behind closed doors by a colonial system and then imposed on Inuit.” (President Natan Obed) It is important to remember that legislation is not legally required for the federal government to provide services in Indigenous languages or to provide funding to First Nations for Indigenous languages. One should always be weary of a government bearing gifts in the form of legislation, as it usually comes with federal control, provisions which limit First Nation rights, and can ultimately be amended or repealed at the will of government. The TRC Calls to Action, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples all provide support for legal recognition and financial support for First Nation languages. That being said, for those First Nations who support federal legislation to enhance the political and legal commitment to First Nation languages, the key moving forward will be in the wording. To make this legislation more helpful than harmful, substantive amendments will be required. Given the speed at which Parliament is moving the study of this legislation, it is unlikely that the majority of First Nations, their representative organizations, and language experts will get their 10-minute opportunity to present to the Standing Committee on much-needed amendments. Perhaps once the bill reaches the Senate, they will embrace their role as the “sober second thought” of government and slow down the process enough to hear from First Nation experts and consider meaningful amendments – assuming there still is a Liberal government after the SNC-Lavalin scandal. * Image is official United Nations logo for the 2019 International Year of Indigenous Languages. **A more detailed analysis to follow.

February 28, 2019
Cannabis legalization ignores First Nations

*This article was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on Jan.30, 2019. For decades, federal and provincial governments, through their local, regional and national police agencies and court systems, have arrested, charged and imprisoned thousands of First Nations people for engaging in the cannabis trade. Many had hoped that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s stated commitment to renewing the relationship with Indigenous peoples and his desire to legalize cannabis would help address many issues, one of which being the crisis-level over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples. Despite legalization of cannabis in 2018, Trudeau’s Liberal government has not yet seen fit to provide relief for Indigenous peoples languishing in prisons for cannabis-related offences. This is disappointing on two fronts: the first being that Trudeau has not kept his promises to Indigenous peoples; and second, that the first ever female Indigenous Justice minister didn’t take steps to get Indigenous peoples out of prison. We know that the over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples is a real crisis — one that continues to grow without abatement. Despite being only five per cent of the population in Canada, they represent more than 27 per cent of those in federal prisons. Indigenous women make up a staggering 43 per cent and Indigenous youth are now over 46 per cent of admissions to youth corrections. Yet, even these statistics don’t show the whole picture. The provincial incarceration rates, especially in the Prairies, are astounding. Provincial prisons can be as high as 80 per cent Indigenous peoples and for Indigenous girls in Saskatchewan, that rate is an unbelievable 98 per cent. We also know that more than half of all drug offences in 2016 were cannabis-related (58 per cent) and the majority of the charges were for possession. To say that we have a real incarceration crisis is an understatement, but the limited cannabis legalization scheme, which does not substantively address over-incarceration of Indigenous peoples, is yet another broken promise. While a handful of First Nation businesses have been specifically “permitted” to engage in this new trade, the majority are under a very real risk of legal sanctions — both as individuals and as First Nations — who assert their jurisdiction in this area. It is a cruel colonial irony that the very same people who have been imprisoned for their role in the cannabis trade — First Nations peoples — are now largely prohibited from engaging in the trade without permission from provincial governments. Neither the federal nor provincial governments engaged in nation-to-nation dialogue with First Nations over how to best bring federal, provincial and First Nation laws into harmony in relation to cannabis. Despite the many calls from First Nations for collaboration, First Nations were left out of the legislative drafting process and any good faith attempt to provide a trilateral, good faith path forward. In May 2018, prior to the legalization of cannabis, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal peoples released a report on Bill C-45 An Act Respecting Cannabis and to Amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, the Criminal Code and Other Acts, which noted a real lack of “meaningful consultation” with Indigenous peoples and recommended that legalization be delayed for one year. The Standing Senate Committee recommended that Canada use the year to engage in negotiations with First Nations about tax collection and revenue sharing on reserves, recognition of the right of First Nations to enact their own legislation and funding for substance abuse and healing centres. They further recommended that no less than 20 per cent of all cannabis production licences be issued to First Nations. This would have provided sufficient time for First Nations to draft their own laws, rules and regulations and develop their own business policies and public safety protocols. While the Ministers of Health and Indigenous Services penned a letter to Senate claiming that their government “respects the jurisdiction of Indigenous communities”, Justice Canada officials previously clarified in Senate hearings that their position is that First Nations cannot enact by-laws in relation to cannabis on reserve and that provincial laws would apply. The federal government can’t have it both ways. Incredibly, Trudeau has missed yet another opportunity to engage with First Nations on a nation-to-nation basis and decided to forge ahead on cannabis legislation without properly engaging with First Nations or meaningfully considering their inherent Aboriginal and treaty rights to pass their own laws. Instead, the federal government assumes provincial jurisdiction setting the stage for the legislated exclusion of First Nations and conflict on the ground. This isn’t the first time the government of the day has blockaded First Nations from engaging in their own business and trade endeavours to support their communities. It wasn’t that long ago that the Conservative government under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper enacted Bill C-10 An Act to amend the Criminal Code (trafficking in contraband tobacco) to create the new offence of trafficking in contraband tobacco and prescribed minimum mandatory sentences for repeat offenders. It was very clear that the bill was intended to target First Nations and their long practice of growing, manufacturing and trading in tobacco despite their inherent, Aboriginal and treaty rights to do so. The RCMP defined contraband tobacco as product that is primarily manufactured on First Nations reserves. This bill effectively acted as a legal blockade attempting to criminalize First Nations for engaging in their own traditional economies — an economy not even known to Europeans prior to contact. Settler governments have long engaged in the colonization of Turtle Island through the theft of First Nations lands and resources, but also through the appropriation of their lucrative trade practices, products and routes. The criminalization of the tobacco trade for First Nations went hand in hand with the transfer of control and benefit from tobacco to settler governments. It looks like Canada is doing the same thing to First Nations with regards to the cannabis trade. https://pampalmater.com/2018/04/canadas-criminalization-of-indigenous.html While it may or may not have been grown, manufactured and traded traditionally, there is no doubt that this is the modern evolution of the right to trade as outlined in so many Supreme Court of Canada cases like the Van der Peet trilogy and the Sappier and Gray cases. First Nations are not limited to economic practices of pre-contact times or be “frozen in time.” Yet, that is exactly what seems to be happening with the cannabis trade. In fact, it looks like those that are first in line to profit from this new legal trade are the very politicians and police officers that once fought so hard to imprison First Nations for trading in tobacco and now cannabis. Those previously engaged in tobacco and drug enforcement have an unfair advantage of knowing all the confidential intelligence on the drug trade and its key players, as well as where and when to sell product and to whom. On top of this, former cops have connections all over the country, and that alone is an incredible form of advantage and means of intimidating the so-called competition. This gross injustice is now compounded by the fact that only certain businesses will be granted licences and the majority of those licences do not include First Nations or their businesses. According to the federal government’s report to Senate, there are only 5 Indigenous producers out of the 105 in Canada — a far cry from the minimum 20 per cent recommended by Senate. As the most impoverished communities in Canada, First Nations have incredible social pressures on them to find ways to provide for their communities in a legally and politically hostile context. Federal and provincial governments have created legal blockades around most First Nation traditional economies like hunting, fishing and gathering. They have left First Nations with few alternatives. If Trudeau thinks that First Nations will simply shrug their shoulders and move along to a different economic opportunity, he is sadly mistaken. Many First Nations are invested in this trade and will defend their legal right to do so with or without provincial approval. The ability of the police to enforce federal or provincial laws in this regard will be highly suspect given their former colleagues’ involvement in the trade. Would the police be upholding the law or protecting the thin blue line’s new income stream? All of this pending conflict — and there will be conflict — could have been avoided had Trudeau practised what he promised and engaged with First Nations on a nation to nation basis and respected First Nation rights. It’s never too late to act, but with an election just around the corner — it is unlikely Trudeau will rock the boat for all those former cops and Liberal politicians who now stand to make millions from cannabis. *Link to the article as originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/9968/cannabis-legalization-ignores-first-nations-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

January 30, 2019
The Indigenous right to say no

(photo by Michelle Girouard)

This article was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on October 12, 2018.

The federal government recently announced that it will not appeal the court decision which quashed Canada’s approval of the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. Instead, Canada will engage with the 117 impacted First Nations in a consultation process led by former Supreme Court of Canada Justice Frank Iacobucci.

If ever there was a sign that the government was going to force this pipeline expansion through the review process, this is it. After all, federal elections are just around the corner and Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has become the face of the Trans Mountain pipeline dispute and all the broken promises that it entails.

Being criticized from all sides — the provinces, industry, Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and now the Federal Court of Appeal — Trudeau decided to bring out the big guns: Iacobucci.

There is little doubt that he was engaged to lead this process to ensure that the technical aspects of consultations are met, thus insulating the government from an appeal of its decision. Even the most trusting person would be hard pressed to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) would hear an appeal about Iacobucci’s consultation process let alone consider it in a truly neutral fashion.

Even if I am wrong about this, what kind of message does this send to First Nations who have been taking their cases to the SCC in the hopes of fair and impartial consideration for decades? Will they now wonder if their cases will be heard by justices who, after they retire will work with governments against their interests?

Remember that conflict of interest is not only the presence of an actual conflict, but also reflects the appearance of conflict. Justice Canada describes judicial independence as the “cornerstone of the Canadian judicial system” and refers to the clear separation of government and the courts. While some might argue he is no longer a sitting justice and may be perfectly legal and ethical according to the rules of ethics of the federal government and even law societies — it still doesn’t feel right. In law school, we learned that lawyers are duty bound to uphold the honour of the legal profession while at work and in our personal lives — even after retirement.

To my mind, Iacobucci carries with him the honour of Canada’s highest court in all his actions, even after retirement. While this may not be a legal ethic issue, it is certainly a moral one. With all due respect, joining the federal side of this pipeline dispute feels a lot like taking sides against First Nations. It feels like a betrayal.

This is a similar story of betrayal that many First Nations feel when the RCMP takes the side of government in every single conflict between government laws and Aboriginal rights. The mandate of the RCMP is to not only prevent crimes and maintain peace and order, but also enforce laws.

According to Canadian law, the Constitution is the highest law in the land. In theory, First Nations should be able to seek the assistance of the RCMP to protect their constitutional rights from being breached by governments or industry. Instead, the RCMP seems to always abide by the will of government and stop us from exercising our rights and/or provide physical protection and security for the extractive industry to allow them to breach our rights.

The government is using these national institutions, the RCMP and the courts, against us to force the expansion of this pipeline. The RCMP arrested land and water defenders in B.C. and now a former SCC justice will be used to insulate Trudeau’s future approval of the pipeline expansion.

Therein lies the real injustice of this process. Regardless of whether the new consultations are led by a former SCC justice or Trudeau himself, Canada has already decided that the pipeline will be built, before ever talking to any of the impacted First Nations, including those that have asserted Aboriginal title. This renders our constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights meaningless. What legal value is the federal government’s constitutional obligation to consult, accommodate and obtain the consent of First Nations before taking actions that would impact our rights and title, if “consent” is interpreted as the right to say yes but excludes the right to say no? It makes no logical sense to interpret the law in such a way, especially to a constitutionally protected right.

Imagine if consent was interpreted this way in both the ordinary and legal understanding of the word consent. When a school sends home a permission form seeking a parent’s consent to allow their child to take a field trip, if the parent does not give consent, the school cannot allow the child to participate. Similarly, if a patient refuses to give consent to an operation to have their hip replaced, then the doctor cannot perform the operation. The absence of consent means no — in other words, a veto that has real legal power and meaning. Imagine if consent was interpreted in this illogical and diminished manner for sexual relations as it is for Aboriginal rights. Imagine if sexual consent in law meant that a man could consult with the woman on whether she wanted sexual relations, and was even willing to accommodate (“where appropriate”) her wishes about how to have sexual relations, but she had no right to say no — no veto over whether or not sexual relations occurred? That is called sexual assault and it is a crime.

The greatest injustices that have ever been committed against First Nations in Canada have resulted from denying the sovereign right of our Nations to say no. The right to have a real veto over infecting our blankets with smallpox; from scalping our people; from stealing our children and raping, murdering and torturing them in residential schools; sterilizing our women and girls; from the forced adoptions of our children into white families during the Sixties Scoop; to the murders and disappearances of our women and girls; to forced human trafficking and now the destruction of our lands and waters for profit.

The right to say no is an inherent part of the legal concept of consent. To interpret this concept otherwise is racist, discriminatory and self-serving, not unlike the doctrines of discovery and terra nullius. Surely, even the SCC would not interpret their own decisions in such an impoverished manner. To do so would render s. 35 an empty shell of a constitutional promise.

No former SCC justice should take part in such an exercise as between Canada and First Nations. I think the honourable thing for the former justice to do would be to withdraw from the process. It might just help even the playing field in a game which is already skewed by a major imbalance of power.

The link to the original article published by The Lawyer’s Daily on October 12, 2018

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7537/the-indigenous-right-to-say-no-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

We should also be able to exercise our right to say no to Trudeau’s proposed legislative framework that will impact our rights: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

October 12, 2018
It’s up to Indigenous, environmental groups to protect the public interest

This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018. The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is provided below.

Despite objections from some of the Indigenous groups about the consultation process, the Federal Court of Appeal (in Tsleil-Waututh Nation et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153) held that Canada acted in good faith and that the consultation framework it used was appropriate.

This was a four-phase process which was to include (1) early engagement, (2) NEB hearing, (3) governor-in-council consideration and (4) regulatory authorization processes.

Where Canada fell down was in Phase III of the consultation process in that it did not meaningfully consider the concerns of the Indigenous groups or attempt to accommodate or mitigate those concerns. There was no substantive discussion about Indigenous rights and the FCA found that federal officials did little more than act as “note-takers”. The court agreed with the Indigenous groups that Canada’s notes, referred to as the Consultation Chronologies, “should be approached with caution” for failing to accurately present the facts.

When pressed by Indigenous groups for a response, federal officials merely repeated the line that they would deliver their concerns to the decision makers. When it finally did come time for a response, Canada informed the groups that it was bound by the recommendations of the NEB and that it was in effect, powerless to add any more conditions on the project. A surprising response given the fact that the FCA had already decided in the Gitxaala Nation case (Gitxaala Nation v. Canada 2016 FCA 187) that under the current legislative scheme, the only decision maker was in fact the governor-in-council and not the NEB.

The Department of Justice is the largest law firm in Canada, working exclusively on behalf of the federal government — it had no excuse for its “erroneous position.” The FCA held that the duty to consult is not met by the mere exchange or discussing of information. Consultation has to focus on constitutionally protected rights and in so doing Canada is obligated to “substantially address the concerns of the First Nation” (from Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage) 2005 SCC 69. This coupled with the fact of Canada’s late disclosures, lack of responses, failure to provide more time and “closed-mindedness” frustrated the consultation process. It is Canada’s actions or lack thereof which is why the Federal Court of Appeal overturned its decision.

So, what now? Well, this is far from over. The FCA has ordered that the decision is quashed and the approval must go back to the governor-in-council for reconsideration. As part of that reconsideration, the GIC must refer the NEB’s recommendations back to the NEB. Canada must also redo its Phase III consultations and accommodations before the GIC can reconsider the approval for the pipeline expansion.

Of great concern is Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s comments that Canada is considering the possibility of an appeal of this decision or legislation to force the pipeline project through.

Whether Canada chooses to abide by the decision or not, what we know for sure is that Canada will forge ahead with the pipeline despite the fact that the impact of a tanker spill on the southern resident killer whales would be “catastrophic” and “there were no direct mitigation measures that Trans Mountain could apply to reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects from Project-related tankers”. Perhaps Tahlequah (the female southern resident killer whale who recently carried her deceased calf for 17 days) was mourning for all us.

However, there is a new complication to Canada’s pipeline plans. Six conservation groups, including the Raincoast Conservation Foundation, Ecojustice, David Suzuki Foundation, Georgia Strait Alliance, Natural Resources Defence Council and the World Wildlife Fund have filed a lawsuit in Federal Court seeking an emergency order to protect the southern resident killer whales.

Indigenous peoples will also have to decide how to proceed to protect their lands, waters and the other life within their territories which depends on a healthy eco-system — including killer whales.

What we know for sure is that we cannot count on either federal or provincial governments to put the health of peoples, lands, waters, plants or animals ahead of the money to be made from the extractive industry. As the FCA held, the public interest and the duty to consult with Indigenous peoples are not in conflict. To the contrary, the violation of the “constitutionally protected rights of Indigenous peoples cannot serve the public interest”.

Looks like it is up to Indigenous peoples and environmental allies to protect the public interest and our collective futures — including Tahlequah’s and the future of her pod.

This article is Part 2 of a 2-part series that was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 17, 2018.

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7326/it-s-up-to-indigenous-environmental-groups-to-protect-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion.

The link to Part 1 which was published Sept.11, 2018 is at this link:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

My Youtube video on this issue provides more detailed information about the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

September 17, 2018
Killer Whales, Trans Mountain Pipeline and the Public Interest

This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days.

Tahlequah’s “tour of grief” which saw one of the female southern resident killer whales (referred to by scientists as J-35) carry her deceased calf for 17 days was an unprecedented show of grief for the death of her calf. It is also a sad reminder of the fact that these endangered whales have had no successful births for three years. Her visible mourning tore at the heartstrings of many Americans, Canadians and especially Indigenous peoples who know all too well the pain of losing their children. While it is not uncommon for a killer whale to hold her deceased calf for a few hours or a day, this show of extended grief was the first time observed by scientists.

Some wonder whether Tahlequah’s actions were not a call for help given that there are only 75 whales left and the proposed increase in tanker traffic from the Trans Mountain pipeline threatens to wipe them out for good. Indigenous Nations in Canada and several conservation groups filed applications against Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline in the hopes of saving these whales and all life in the surrounding eco-system.

On Aug. 30, 2018, Justice Eleanor Dawson delivered the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) quashing Canada’s approval of the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion (Tsleil-Waututh Nation v. Canada (Attorney General) 2018 FCA 153). From the moment the decision was released, there was more shock and awe to go around than had the court pronounced that the earth was flat. While the controversy generated from that decision has been quite dramatic, the decision is far less apocalyptic than most might think.

Ultimately, this decision to quash the approval of the Trans Mountain expansion reflected principles espoused by the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) for the last two decades. No new law was created — it was a case which reflected the current legal status quo.

This case — unlike the raging fires in British Columbia or the melting of the ice in the Arctic — is rather non-calamitous; unless of course you consider the fate of the southern resident killer whale or the health of the Indigenous lands and waters upon which this pipeline will wreak havoc. That is because despite the fact that the Federal Court of Appeal quashed the decision in this instance, it also set up the conditions for which the federal government can approve the pipeline in the future. So, while Prime Minister Trudeau moans about how “hurt” he is by the decision, and while the extractive industry goes into full panic mode, the only ones who need to be worried here are the Indigenous peoples and their conservation allies who will now face the full wrath of the oil industry and its federal and provincial cheerleaders.

Here’s how it all started: On Dec. 16, 2013 (under the Harper government) Trans Mountain submitted an application to the National Energy Board (NEB) for a certificate to allow the expansion project to proceed. After several years of review, on May 19, 2016, the NEB recommended to the governor-in-council that the pipeline expansion be approved. Six months later, on Nov. 29, 2016, the governor-in-council (cabinet) (under the Trudeau government) accepted the NEB’s recommendation and issued an order-in-council to that effect. The appeals of this decision were heard at the FCA in October of 2017 and the court issued its decision almost a year later in August 2018.

This case involves individual applications by five First Nation collectives, two of B.C.’s largest cities, and two conservation groups asking the Federal Court of Appeal to overturn Canada’s decision to approve the pipeline expansion. The respondents in the case were the Attorney General of Canada, the NEB and the Trans Mountain Pipeline company. The FCA consolidated the applications into one to be heard together.

While the applicants made various arguments challenging different aspects of the decision-making process, the FCA determined that the only “decision” that was under review was the decision of the governor-in-council to approve the expansion. That decision was challenged on two primary grounds (1) the NEB’s process and resulting report were flawed and (2) Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult with Indigenous peoples.

The primary reason why the FCA found that the NEB’s process was flawed was because it “unjustifiably defined the scope of the Project under review not to include Project-related tanker traffic”. Specifically, the NEB excluded the impact of increased marine traffic on the B.C. coast on the southern resident killer whales, which are an endangered species, was not properly considered within its assessment of the impacts of the project. This is despite the fact that they had already acknowledged that the increase in large tanker traffic “would contribute to the total cumulative effects on the Southern resident killer whales, and would further impede the recovery of that species” and that “Southern resident killer whales are an endangered species”.

They further acknowledged that: “… the operation of Project-related marine vessels is likely to result in significant adverse effects to the Southern resident killer whale, and that it is likely to result in significant adverse effects on Aboriginal cultural uses associated with these marine mammals”.

The FCA noted that Project-related tankers carry the risk of significant, if not catastrophic, adverse environmental and socio-economic effects should a spill occur”. Ultimately, the governor-in-council could not rely on such a deficient report in order to make its decision.

The other ground challenging the validity of the decision was the finding that Canada did not fulfil its duty to consult and accommodate Indigenous peoples’ legitimate concerns about the impact of the pipeline on their territories and their constitutionally protected Aboriginal rights and title.

Specifically, the Tsleil-Waututh Nation asserted Aboriginal title to the land, water, air and marine resources. The Squamish Nation asserted Aboriginal title, Aboriginal rights, the right to be self-governing and the right to fish. The Coldwater Band asserted Aboriginal rights and title, as did the Sto:lo Collective, Upper Nicola Band and Stk’emlupsemc te Secwepemc — all within their respective territories. They had all engaged in Canada’s consultation processes despite the limited funding to participate, the brief timelines and the consistent failure of federal officials to respond to their concerns.

In the end, the facts clearly show it was the First Nations groups who were acting in good faith, despite Canada’s less than honorable actions.

This is the first of a two-part series.

This article is Part 1 of a 2 part series which was originally published in The Lawyer’s Daily on September 11, 2018. Part 2 will be published in a few days. The original link for Part 1 can be found here:

https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/7294/killer-whales-trans-mountain-pipeline-and-the-public-interest-pamela-palmater?category=opinion

You can also watch the CBC panel where we discussed the implications of this case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kutq9mleRTA&t=28s Here is the link to my Youtube video breaking down the decision: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HQfOctnT7o

September 11, 2018

Side-by-Side Comparison of NDP, Liberal & Conservative Platforms on First Nation Issues for Ontario Election 2018

PLATFORM PROMISES	NDP	LIBERAL	CONSERVATIVES
Gov’mt to Gov’mt Relationship	Yes, will sign accord, will work on stable revenue sources w First Nations (FNs)	Yes, already have an accord	L
Land transfers back to First Nations	L	? Will try to resolve land claims w FNs & Canada	L
Resource revenue sharing	Yes, will share revenue w FNs, will give ON’s mining taxes to FNs ($218M over 5yrs)	No? will continue to share “benefits of resource development” w FNs & Metis	L
Implement TRC Calls to Action	Yes, will start w action items under prov jurisdiction	Journey Together plan + $250M/3yrs (in progress)	L
Contribute to First Nation Health	Yes, will double ON investment to $209M/year in FN Health Action Plan, FNs will decide health funding priorities, ex. expanded suicide prevention, more doctor time on reserve, more health care workers, more FN midwives, increase FN role in frontline care	Yes, $80M over 4 yrs to expand child & youth mental health services for kids at risk, $220M over 3 years for improved access to healthcare, mental health, addiction, palliative care, Indigenous leadership in healthcare delivery	L
Address First Nation Hydro Costs	Yes, FN exempt from Hydro costs, FN ownership stake in Hydro	Reduce Hydro costs for remote communities by up to 50%	L
Safe Drinking Water	Will address water infrastructure on reserve, then bill Ottawa	L	L
Childcare on Reserve	L	Yes, $40M over 3 yrs for culturally relevant childcare on reserve, 4500 new spaces on reserve $290M to double childcare spaces on reserve, $70M over 2 yrs for off-reserve children & families	L
First Nation Education	L	L	L
Jordan’s Principle	No specific mention, but will pay for health services & infrastructure on reserve first, argue w feds later	L	L
First Nation Policing	Yes, will double ON investment in FNs to $30M, joint development of stand alone legislation	Opt into provincial policing framework & create FN Police Service Boards	L
MMIWG	Yes, will continue to support inquiry, provide family supports, increase resources to solve cold cases	Yes, long-term strategy to end violence against Indig women, Address human trafficking & support survivors*	L
Address problematic Far North Act	Yes, will replace it	L	L
Jobs & Training & Economic development	Yes, will prioritize FN training on & off-reserve, Partner w FNs to develop green energy, will work w FNs to develop minimum targets for FN procurement	Yes, $30M over 2 years for skills training, Expanded role for institutes	L
First Nations/Indigenous Institutes	Yes, $28M in Friendship Centre repairs, $91M over 6yrs to 28 Centres, $41M programming for children & youth	Yes, will support stronger role for Indigenous institutes, work with urban communities for off-reserve programs	L
First Nation Housing	L	Yes, will increase funds for Indigenous Supportive Housing Program	L
Indigenous Languages & Culture	L	Yes, will support Indigenous languages, Youth cultural camps, will support Indigenous culture	L
Social Assistance & Income Security	Yes, will work w FN Income Security Reform Working Group & Urban Indigenous Table to implement Roadmap for Change Report	Yes, will enhance access to culturally safe & responsive social assistance	L
North, Remote Communities	Will replace Far North Act, $1B to get Ring of Fire moving now, Collaborate w FNs to get infrastructure projects moving	Part of $1B commitment = year round access road to Ring of Fire, continue support Wataynikaney Power Grid project (16 remote FNs), gas price watchdog, invest more northern hospitals, schools, transportation, $500M/3yrs broadband, Increase access to mental health for Indigenous youth	L
First Nation Treaty Rights	Ensure treaty rights respected	L	L
First Nation Education	Curriculum will include Indigenous history, colonialism, residential schools, reconciliation	L	L
UNDRIP into provincial law	Implement all TRC Calls to Action – starting with those in provincial jurisdiction	L	L
Address Crisis in Foster Care	Yes, will work with FN leaders & experts to identify needs of FN kids, No more solitary confinement, Mediation not courts, Goal = 0 kids in care	L	L
Justice System	Ban policing carding, Police training in human rights & racism	Yes, will create bicultural justice centres, Culturally responsive supports in bail system, Improve FN repres on juries	L
Anti-Racism	Ban policing carding, Police training in human rights & racism	Data collection & analysis w partners, Increase diversity in gov’mt, boards, commissions, anti-racism education & training	L
Environment	Expand parks & create new ones in consultation w FNs, Will clean up Wabigoon Mercury, Fund mercury treatment centre, Additional $12M for retroactive payments for mercury disability	Support FNs to transition to non-fossil fuel energy to minimize impact, $85M Grassy Narrows remediation	L

*Please note: this chart is based exclusively on what is contained in the three platforms in terms of what they are promising going forward. It does not include external documents or statement, nor does it report on the past performances of any governments over time. It is merely a snapshot of what is being promised if you elect that party. Please send me a note if you see an error – this is accurate as of May 30, 2018. For a summary analysis of these platforms, please see my article in Lawyer’s Daily at: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/6628/the-first-nations-agenda-in-the-ontario-election-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Or, for those without access to Lawyer’s Daily, please find it on my blog here: https://pampalmater.com/2018/06/the-first-nationsagenda-in-ontario.html

June 4, 2018

Trudeau’s Dance of Deception on Indigenous Rights

*Originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on February 26, 2018 (edited to include links) On Feb. 14, 2018, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his plan to develop a new legislative framework called the “Recognition and Implementation of Rights Framework” intended to recognize Indigenous rights and avoid litigation. This announcement came after the incredible not guilty verdict in the Gerald Stanley murder trial — the farmer who killed Colten Boushie from Red Pheasant First Nation — and the subsequent nationwide rallies and protests by Indigenous peoples.

There is no doubt that Trudeau was trying to deflect attention from the deep-rooted racism within Canada’s justice system — but also in his own government’s failure to take substantive action on any of the injustices facing Indigenous peoples. Despite his many pre- and post-election promises to Indigenous peoples — Trudeau has been all talk and little action.

Aside from the opportunistic nature of his announcement, it is important to note that this is nothing new. Since his election, Trudeau has made the same core promises to recognize and implement Indigenous rights in a multitude of strategically timed announcements. He campaigned on reviewing and repealing all laws imposed on First Nations by the former Conservative government headed by Stephen Harper. He promised to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), including the provision of free, prior and informed consent which he confirmed meant a veto for First Nations.

After he was elected he reconfirmed that his government would renew the nation to nation relationship based on rights recognition. However, his mandate letters to his cabinet tended to focus more on specific social programs than any rights-based agenda. Despite these very telling mandate letters, Trudeau managed to maintain the fanfare around his government’s commitments at the Assembly of First Nations’ (AFN) Chiefs in Assembly meetings in 2015 and 2016. With very similar impassioned speeches, he re-announced his government’s commitment to repeal all of Harper’s laws, review all Canadian laws to ensure their compliance with section 35 Aboriginal and treaty rights and implement UNDRIP.

However, year after year, he has not taken any substantive steps in this direction. Therefore, when yet another announcement was made in June 2017, this time about a Memorandum of Understanding between the AFN and Canada, there was some expectation of concrete deliverables. Like all other announcements to date, the pomp and circumstance celebrating the MOU overshadowed the fact that the only hard commitment in the MOU was to meet with the AFN three times a year to talk.

This is the well-choreographed dance used by Trudeau to make Canadians and Indigenous peoples believe that he is making great strides, “absolutely historic” advancements, or engaging in a “fundamental rethink” of the relationship with Indigenous peoples. Sadly, the AFN has become a willing partner in this deception. Had the AFN been doing its job, it would have advised First Nations not to count on the speeches and announcements, but to force hard commitments on paper. It should have been concerned that Trudeau’s legislative framework idea is yet another federal government idea, much like the creation of two Indian Affairs departments — neither of which was requested or developed by First Nations.

We know from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the most recent Truth and Reconciliation Commission report that every time Canada imposes solutions on us — our lives get much worse. This announcement is no exception. Despite trying to distance himself from his father’s legacy, Justin Trudeau is covertly trying to do what his father Pierre Trudeau tried to do directly.

In 1969, then Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, together with his Minister of Indian Affairs, Jean Chretien released the 1969 White Paper on Indian Policy. The goal was to repeal the Indian Act, dissolve Indian Affairs, eliminate Indian status, get rid of reserves and treaties.

There was tremendous opposition to this plan by First Nations, including protests and several official responses, including Citizens Plus — dubbed the Red Paper — from First Nations in Alberta and Wahbung: Our Tomorrows from First Nations in Manitoba. In both of these responses, First Nations said they did not want the Indian Act repealed and that any amendments had to be done with their consent. They also said that their separate status as Indians and treaty beneficiaries were to stay. Most importantly, they reconfirmed what First Nations have long said: that they need their lands, resources and jurisdictions recognized so they can rebuild their Nations. Trudeau abandoned the 1969 White Paper, but subsequent governments have never stopped trying to fulfil its objectives.

Now, Justin Trudeau, who did not consult with First Nations nationally, has made unilateral decisions about Indigenous peoples including changing the name of the department, creating two new departments, limiting nation to nation relations to meetings with the AFN and a new legislative framework to limit Indigenous rights. We know that this legislation will limit rights because of the code words used by Trudeau during his announcement. His focus on “certainty” is a Justice Canada word used to extinguish Indigenous rights and title. His comment that this process is not about getting back what was lost — is code for no return of lands and resources or compensation for the loss of use or benefit.

Trudeau’s confirmation that no amendments would be made to the Constitution means that no substantive recognition of Indigenous jurisdiction will be made. Finally, his focus on doing this to avoid the courts is another way of saying that he doesn’t want any more court cases upholding our rights to land and our right to decide what happens on our lands. Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould made it very clear that free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) in UNDRIP “does not equate to a veto” — a stark contrast from Trudeau’s promise that FPIC “absolutely” equates to a veto.

Trudeau’s dance of deception has the potential to gut Indigenous rights, treaties, title and jurisdiction in Canada, especially if he is permitted to ride the pomp and circumstance of these carefully worded, flowery announcements to royal assent before the next election — as he promised. Conflict is coming and the true test of reconciliation will be over our right to say no. *Link to the article originally published in Lawyer’s Daily on February 26, 2018: https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/articles/5976/trudeau-s-dance-of-deception-on-indigenous-rights-pamela-palmater?category=columnists Please check out my related video on Youtube discussing Trudeau’s false face speech to the UN about Canada’s relations with Indigenous peoples: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI3-Vc01InQ&t=5s

See also my related video providing a basic explanation of the federal legislative framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c7Z3579b20c&t=2s

February 26, 2018

Tag: Aboriginal rights

CANADA’S INDIAN POLICY HASN’T CHANGED MUCH

RECONCILIATION: THE GOAL IS THE SAME

APOLOGIES VERSUS LAND BACK

CANADA BREACHS ITS OWN “RULE OF LAW”

#LANDBACK